|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2014 14:18:58 GMT -6
According to the news report of the lawsuit, the school system absolutely did 1-3. Obviously I have no inside knowledge as to the truth of the allegations. The allegations of active cover-up in the civil lawsuit suggest that #4 might have been in play. I did not hear an allegation of #5. These cases are reasonably parallel even if there are distinctions. The key points of similarity are that those who were in the know failed to expose the perpetrator and therefore facilitated his predation. In addition, in response to the civil lawsuit, the organizations are circling the wagons. There are differences of course. So what? Are you suggesting that the school system case is irrelevant to the point we were actually discussing because the parallels are not perfect? Jim 5. Should Pope Benedict be tried for obstruction of justice the clerical abuse scandal? Why or why not? www.nytimes.com/2010/07/02/world/europe/02pope.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0With respect to the school, I think you are missing the point. The organizational behavior parallels are obvious but not identical of course. If a prosecutor somewhere believes that she or he can convict Benedict under an applicable law, I would not oppose prosecution. In other words I do not think the Pope should be above the criminal justice system. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 18, 2014 15:38:25 GMT -6
Flawed? 1. RCC clergy were complicit in the Rwandan massacre: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanase_Serombaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenceslas_Munyeshyakaen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_RukundoThere as is the priest/rapist scandal, the lateness, vagary and obfuscation by the RCC has been noted internally and externally. 2. The teachings of the church on condom use have lead to catastrophic and widespread suffering in Africa and worldwide, generally being considered a critical obstruction in the global response to HIV. churchandstate.org.uk/2012/12/the-catholic-church-condoms-and-hiv-aids-in-africa/3. Proscription of birth control is contributing, particularly in Latin America, poverty and a collision course with Malthusian destiny, against the better instincts of even Catholics themselves: www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67121-8/fulltext4. Official Catholic support of abstinence only sex education, shown to be ineffective in disease and pregnancy prevention, threatens to derail efforts to control STI's in the US and elsewhere. 5. RCC teaching on homosexuality as "moral evil" marginalizes 5-8% of the world population. On these issues alone, I would hold that the RCC is amongthe most dangerous institutions on the planet. Valued institution? It depends on what you're willing to overlook, I suppose. Please run other institutions such as all of Islam or the secular governments of Russia, China and India through your metrics 1-5 above and you will see that a fairly large majority of humanity lives under the boot of one or more of "the most dangerous institutions on the planet." Unlike some other institutions, the RCC does not advocate wiping populations off of the face of the earth and has not implemented policies that result in mass starvation, at least not recently. So the Holy RCC is morally competitive with China, Russia and Islam? Congratulations. We are moving far afield from my original point however. You are unwilling to acknowledge that many millions of people do find value in the Church because the Church has significant redeeming aspects. The value these people place in a flawed institution apparently bothers you significantly more than other people's allegiance to similarly flawed institutions. You can explain why, if you want. Jim I've spent plenty of metaphorical ink on legitimate concerns about the church, most of which you don't deny. You have yet to demonstrate any value in the church that counterbalances it. Tell me why it you think it isn't simple habitual allegiance and and/or a desire to live forever and/or commune with dead loved ones that drives loyalty. The RCC, viewed as a charity, would have an astonishingly high overhead and low aid efficiency, so you can probably set that aside.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2014 16:46:34 GMT -6
A. "So the Holy RCC is morally competitive with China, Russia and Islam? Congratulations." B. "I've spent plenty of metaphorical ink on legitimate concerns about the church, most of which you don't deny. You have yet to demonstrate any value in the church that counterbalances it. Tell me why it you think it isn't simple habitual allegiance and and/or a desire to live forever and/or commune with dead loved ones that drives loyalty. The RCC, viewed as a charity, would have an astonishingly high overhead and low aid efficiency, so you can probably set that aside." A. No, I was pointing out the sketchiness of your assessment of the RCC as "one of the most dangerous institutions on earth." Many modern institutions, typically governments that bring war, genocide, resource destruction and starvation to enormous swaths of the planet are qualitatively and quantitatively far more dangerous than the RCC in my view. B. I certainly don't deny your legitimate concerns about the Church.... but, "You have yet to demonstrate any value in the church that counterbalances it..." Of course not, why would I undertake that task! My goal here is not now and never has been to convince you personally that there is value in the RCC or value in any organized religion. 1 What a waste of time and effort that would be. Even so, your challenge of "You have yet to demonstrate any value in the church that counterbalances it..." crystallizes in my mind what has been bothering me about your position. What business is it of ours whether the benefits loyal Catholics receive from the Church are also valued by us? Are you really this comfortable passing judgment on the relative worth of the values of your fellows? When Church staff and management commit crimes, the full force of criminal law should be applied. After that point, I think it is presumptuous of you to mock and despise those who remain loyal to the Church simply because you do not share their values and do not see the benefits they see. 2There is clear and huge value in the RCC and other organized religions to those who care to be members. It is a fact that you do not value the benefits of organized religion and I am A-OK with that - your value structure is yours and yours alone. Why don't you feel this way about the religious? With respect to the merits of the " You have yet to demonstrate..." challenge, has it been so long since you were part of a church that you can't even remember the benefits some find to be very real and important? Things like community involvement and support; personal emotional and spiritual support given and received; spiritual growth, uplift and education; hope when hope is sometimes hard to find; charity - yes, charity! (You apparently argue that bureaucratic inefficiency negates the inherent value of charity!!) There are lots more that someone far more churchy than me might be able to add. And, I have not even mentioned any supernatural benefits, since I have no way of arguing that such are real. Jim 1. My position was laid out early in this thread: "You clearly expect Catholics to vote with their feet. Some will and some have. It is not hard to imagine why others have not. The Church has good aspects and bad aspects which is exactly the same as is true for all human institutions. For many Catholics the good outweighs the bad. Why would they leave?"
2. e.g. "Right. Better to ignore the truth than to admit that one's path to salvation is paved with bullshit."
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2014 16:47:20 GMT -6
A. No, I was pointing out the sketchiness of your assessment of the RCC as "one of the most dangerous institutions on earth." Many modern institutions, typically governments that bring war, genocide, resource destruction and starvation to enormous swaths of the planet are qualitatively and quantitatively far more dangerous than the RCC in my view. B. I certainly don't deny your legitimate concerns about the Church.... but, "You have yet to demonstrate any value in the church that counterbalances it..." Of course not, why would I undertake that task! My goal here is not now and never has been to convince you personally that there is value in the RCC or value in any organized religion. 1 What a waste of time and effort that would be. Even so, your challenge of "You have yet to demonstrate any value in the church that counterbalances it..." crystallizes in my mind what has been bothering me about your position. What business is it of ours whether the benefits loyal Catholics receive from the Church are also valued by us? Are you really this comfortable passing judgment on the relative worth of the values of your fellows? When Church staff and management commit crimes, the full force of criminal law should be applied. After that point, I think it is presumptuous of you to mock and despise those who remain loyal to the Church simply because you do not share their values and do not see the benefits they see. 2There is clear and huge value in the RCC and other organized religions to those who care to be members. It is a fact that you do not value the benefits of organized religion and I am A-OK with that - your value structure is yours and yours alone. Why don't you feel this way about the religious? With respect to the merits of the " You have yet to demonstrate..." challenge, has it been so long since you were part of a church that you can't even remember the benefits some find to be very real and important? Things like community involvement and support; personal emotional and spiritual support given and received; spiritual growth, uplift and education; hope when hope is sometimes hard to find; charity - yes, charity! (You apparently argue that bureaucratic inefficiency negates the inherent value of charity!!) There are lots more that someone far more churchy than me might be able to add. And, I have not even mentioned any supernatural benefits, since I have no way of arguing that such are real. Jim 1. My position was laid out early in this thread: "You clearly expect Catholics to vote with their feet. Some will and some have. It is not hard to imagine why others have not. The Church has good aspects and bad aspects which is exactly the same as is true for all human institutions. For many Catholics the good outweighs the bad. Why would they leave?"
2. e.g. "Right. Better to ignore the truth than to admit that one's path to salvation is paved with bullshit."Crap, I messed up the quote function. I'll try to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 18, 2014 17:13:17 GMT -6
Even so, your challenge of "You have yet to demonstrate any value in the church that counterbalances it..." crystallizes in my mind what has been bothering me about your position. What business is it of ours whether the benefits loyal Catholics receive from the Church are also valued by us? Are you really this comfortable passing judgment on the relative worth of the values of your fellows? When Church staff and management commit crimes, the full force of criminal law should be applied. After that point, I think it is presumptuous of you to mock and despise those who remain loyal to the Church simply because you do not share their values and do not see the benefits they see. 2I think, but can't prove, that what bothers you about my critiques of religious institutions is rooted to some extent in the fact that you don't like what you have described in the past a comfortable place in unflattering terms. I dislike the church for the reasons already listed. Most Catholics with whom I am associated are nearly as critical of the church as I am. Do I despise them for membership? No, but I am willing, to those with whom I have adequate rapport to discuss emotionally sensitive issues, to question the basis for their loyalty in the face of trust-eroding behaviors, lack of accountability, bigotry and endless appeals for money. Most of them are willing to admit what you don't, i.e. that to think of this life as all there is is frightening and/or disturbing to them, particularly in light of the death of loved ones, and that despite lack of esteem for the behavior of the church, they still see it as the path to heaven, mostly out of ingrained habit. "I'll be Catholic, but I can't stand to listen to Father ________, and I don't go to church" is clearly the most common refrain. You don't think it's worth asking why to the primary clause. Fine. I do. And if you have and answer that sounds better than the ones above, great. It seems, however, that you are no less judgmental about my willingness to ask than I am about those who don't bother.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2014 18:39:06 GMT -6
Most of them are willing to admit what you don't, i.e. that to think of this life as all there is is frightening and/or disturbing to them, particularly in light of the death of loved ones, and that despite lack of esteem for the behavior of the church, they still see it as the path to heaven, mostly out of ingrained habit. Are you kidding me? Apparently you have not read (or believed) anything that I have written about my religious viewpoint over the last decade or so. I can go cut-paste from Astromart (assuming the relevant threads exist) if you need a refresher. Simply put, what is bugging me is that you are being unreasonably judgmental in my view. You are judging others based upon a point of view concerning religion, God and religious institutions which you deem to be objectively correct. This is exactly what many church types do and I find it off-putting in those instances as well. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2014 19:12:44 GMT -6
Most of them are willing to admit what you don't, i.e. that to think of this life as all there is is frightening and/or disturbing to them, particularly in light of the death of loved ones, and that despite lack of esteem for the behavior of the church, they still see it as the path to heaven, mostly out of ingrained habit. Are you kidding me? Apparently you have not read (or believed) anything that I have written about my religious viewpoint over the last decade or so. I can go cut-paste from Astromart (assuming the relevant threads exist) if you need a refresher. Simply put, what is bugging me is that you are being unreasonably judgmental in my view. You are judging others based upon a point of view concerning religion, God and religious institutions which you deem to be objectively correct. This is exactly what many church types do and I find it off-putting in those instances as well. Jim Ok, I couldn't resist a stroll down memory lane. My religious beliefs have not changed since 2006 when I first wrote my "hope" or "belief" that a just God, assuming he exists, will provide a path to salvation for all good souls, me, you and Steve-a-roo too. Catholicism is no more and no less a path to heaven than Zoroastrianism or simple unbelieving honest living. Death is not something that I fear, although I am loving life, so I hope to avoid the later for as long as reasonable. I have no great faith that an afterlife exists, although I hope it does. I've attended Mass exactly 1 time in the past two years (or so) and our charitable dollars go elsewhere. Whether or not you continue to believe that Catholic-bashing bothers me (it does not) is up to you. I do think that you are being overly judgmental concerning the loyalty of religious folks to flawed institutions. I can hardly include myself in the group of "religious folks" as you ought to have known. Some oldies:
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2014 19:23:03 GMT -6
Most of them are willing to admit what you don't, i.e. that to think of this life as all there is is frightening and/or disturbing to them, particularly in light of the death of loved ones, and that despite lack of esteem for the behavior of the church, they still see it as the path to heaven, mostly out of ingrained habit. Are you kidding me? Apparently you have not read (or believed) anything that I have written about my religious viewpoint over the last decade or so. I can go cut-paste from Astromart (assuming the relevant threads exist) if you need a refresher. Simply put, what is bugging me is that you are being unreasonably judgmental in my view. You are judging others based upon a point of view concerning religion, God and religious institutions which you deem to be objectively correct. This is exactly what many church types do and I find it off-putting in those instances as well. Jim Finally, in what I consider to be a fitting assessment; I've long been held to be in good company based upon my loosey-goosey faith structure; such as it is....
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 18, 2014 19:30:39 GMT -6
Catholicism is no more and no less a path to heaven than Zoroastrianism or simple unbelieving honest living. Exactly--it's not that I have any delusions that you harbor exclusivist triumphalist religion. You have clearly been a religious pluralist as long as I have known you. I'm arguing the other side of the coin. "All paths are potentially profitable" is the obverse of "all paths are potentially meaningless". By the time you met me, I was either at this point, or converging on it fairly quickly. So what is the argument? Apparently: 1. That you think Catholicism is a net positive in the world. 2. The I think it is a net negative. 3. That you find me arguing #2 is judgmental. Well...pot/kettle. I certainly like you, but I've never known you to esteem any opinion higher than your own. If you don't like this sort of thread, I am certain that we can find some politics to argue, but for the moment I'm getting modest entertainment barbecuing a sacred cow hearing you say that the only problem you have with it is that I ought to be a vegetarian. I think you're pissed because it's your cow. Good to see Pete Townshend again .
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2014 19:37:18 GMT -6
Catholicism is no more and no less a path to heaven than Zoroastrianism or simple unbelieving honest living. Exactly--it's not that I have any delusions that you harbor exclusivist triumphalist religion. You have clearly been a religious pluralist as long as I have known you. I'm arguing the other side of the coin. "All paths are potentially profitable" is the obverse of "all paths are potentially meaningless". By the time you met me, I was either at this point, or converging on it fairly quickly. So what is the argument? Apparently: 1. That you think Catholicism is a net positive in the world. 2. The I think it is a net negative. 3. That you find me arguing #2 is judgmental. Well...pot/kettle. I certainly like you, but I've never known you to esteem any opinion higher than your own. If you don't like this sort of thread, I am certain that we can find some politics to argue, but for the moment I'm getting modest entertainment barbecuing a sacred cow hearing you say that the only problem you have with it is that I ought to be a vegetarian. I think you're pissed because it's your cow. Nope; from my POV: 1. I think it obvious that Catholics who have not left the Church think that Catholicism is a net positive. 2. You think Catholics who have not left the Church, in view of the crimes of the management, are contemptible.
3. I think that #2 is overly judgmental and more than a bit sanctimonious. Jim p.s. Nice cow analogy, even if it is incorrect in this case. Also, I am glad that you spelled Townshend correctly this time.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jun 18, 2014 20:07:54 GMT -6
Exactly--it's not that I have any delusions that you harbor exclusivist triumphalist religion. You have clearly been a religious pluralist as long as I have known you. I'm arguing the other side of the coin. "All paths are potentially profitable" is the obverse of "all paths are potentially meaningless". By the time you met me, I was either at this point, or converging on it fairly quickly. So what is the argument? Apparently: 1. That you think Catholicism is a net positive in the world. 2. The I think it is a net negative. 3. That you find me arguing #2 is judgmental. Well...pot/kettle. I certainly like you, but I've never known you to esteem any opinion higher than your own. If you don't like this sort of thread, I am certain that we can find some politics to argue, but for the moment I'm getting modest entertainment barbecuing a sacred cow hearing you say that the only problem you have with it is that I ought to be a vegetarian. I think you're pissed because it's your cow. Nope; from my POV: 1. I think it obvious that Catholics who have not left the Church think that Catholicism is a net positive. Of course 2. You think Catholics who have not left the Church, in view of the crimes of the management, are contemptible.No, I've been arguing that the church is contemptible and I stand by it. We'd be better off without the damned thing, and your that in your defense of the middle ground you point out with some pride that you rarely if ever go was my RDA of irony for the night. The worst I would say about any parishioner is that they are, to borrow a religious metaphor, acting like sheep. Christians mystifyingly see this as a compliment. 3. I think that #2 is overly judgmental and more than a bit sanctimonious. And I think #3 is more than a bit hyperbolic, given the extent to which you are distorting my argument in #2. p.s. Nice cow analogy, even if it is incorrect in this case. Also, I am glad that you spelled Townshend correctly this time.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2014 20:25:35 GMT -6
Nope; from my POV: 1. I think it obvious that Catholics who have not left the Church think that Catholicism is a net positive. Of course 2. You think Catholics who have not left the Church, in view of the crimes of the management, are contemptible.No, I've been arguing that the church is contemptible and I stand by it. We'd be better off without the damned thing, and your that in your defense of the middle ground you point out with some pride that you rarely if ever go was my RDA of irony for the night. The worst I would say about any parishioner is that they are, to borrow a religious metaphor, acting like sheep. Christians mystifyingly see this as a compliment. 3. I think that #2 is overly judgmental and more than a bit sanctimonious. And I think #3 is more than a bit hyperbolic, given the extent to which you are distorting my argument in #2. p.s. Nice cow analogy, even if it is incorrect in this case. Also, I am glad that you spelled Townshend correctly this time. Well, we disagree, perhaps not surprisingly. Some of your posts in this thread prove that #2 was no distortion. I have one last thing to add, but it is lighter and requires a quote. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 18, 2014 20:28:52 GMT -6
I certainly like you, but I've never known you to esteem any opinion higher than your own. Fair enough and 95% true. I have documentary proof however, that I have esteemed certain other's opinion higher than my own on topics of religion. I'll save it for a rainy day. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jun 19, 2014 9:08:16 GMT -6
Thanks Jim,
It was nice to see Mr. Sensitivity still alive in Amart archives.
Perhaps you have allowed your feet to speak, having not attended church for so long. You don't appear to be the prime candidate to speak for those who sheepishly, for whatever reasons, support the RCC. Sure, the Church does some good, but only the bare minimum to be recognized. Sure, the Church does offer emotional support to its members, but it also follows a path that includes tremendous wealth accumulated mostly from its members and highly questionable business practices.
What's the point of defending something that is so easily corrupted, so materialistic, and more often than not, the poster child for hypocrisy?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jun 19, 2014 10:06:08 GMT -6
Thanks Jim, You don't appear to be the prime candidate to speak for those who sheepishly, for whatever reasons, support the RCC. Hi Steve: I suppose that's true, but I'm also not a prime candidate to speak for gays, minorities, women and other groups I speak up for from time to time. I'm fine with anyone's personal conclusion that the RCC is irredeemably corrupted. I am rubbed wrong by the second level of attack against those "sheep" who still see great value in the RCC that exceeds the flaws. Jim
|
|